Hot Topics:

Westboro violates a father's rights (letter)

SEAN E. SUMMERS

Updated:
08/30/2013 12:35:12 PM EDT

This is written in response to the editorial titled "Right call in Westboro case," which appeared in the York Daily Record on Sept. 30. It is not surprising that a newspaper would suggest that any and all speech should be protected -- regardless of the consequences or circumstances. However, there is much more to the story.

The facts of the Westboro case are not in dispute. Albert Snyder's son Matthew -- a Marine lance corporal -- was killed in Iraq several years ago. Snyder was in the process of mourning his son at the family church when Westboro's members traveled from Kansas to Maryland to specifically target Matthew's funeral for a protest. It goes without saying that none of the Westboro members knew Matthew or the Snyder family. The funeral procession had to be diverted because Westboro members planted themselves at the main entrance of the church to ensure maximum exposure to the Snyder family.

Because of the controversy already surrounding the Westboro Church and the fact that it announced its plans in advance and requested protection, a police escort, local and state police, ambulances, fire trucks and a control unit in the form of a Winnebago were also in attendance. Perhaps with the exception of celebrities or state dignitaries, no private person receives this type of attention at a funeral. Snyder wanted to mourn his son in private and obviously did not want the circus atmosphere that Westboro brought with it. Perhaps most notably, it was established at trial that Westboro's words and actions physically, emotionally and psychologically exacerbated Snyder's diabetes and depression -- even Westboro's hired-gun experts agreed with this analysis.

Snyder did not interject himself in Westboro's church. He did not object to Westboro's actions and signs at a local park -- no matter how personally repugnant he found the signs. If a person travels in a public area and sees a person acting or saying something that is offensive, he has the ability to simply turn his head or come back another day. In stark contrast, Snyder had but one opportunity to mourn his son before he was buried -- he could not come back another day. It goes without saying that no parent in a civilized society should have to turn his head at his own son's funeral.

From a legal standpoint, the issue is not as simple as the editors would have us believe. The Constitution restricts Congress's ability to pass laws that abridge the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court, and other courts, have extended this principle so that the judicial process can likewise not be used to restrict the freedom of speech. However, other courts have recognized that the freedom of speech is not without limits. For example, courts have sustained laws that prohibit people from yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

The Daily Record editors suggest that, for example, abortion protestors might be constrained if the Court of Appeals decided the Snyder case the other way. However, courts have already ruled the First Amendment has limits in the context of abortion protesters. For example, in Frisby v. Schultz, the Supreme Court determined that the government had a significant interest in preventing picketing in front of a private residence because of "the unique nature of the home." More notably, in National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish, the Supreme Court ruled that "(f)amily members have personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead and objecting to unwanted public exploitation that, by intruding upon their own grief, tends to degrade the rites and respect they seek to accord the deceased person who was once their own."

On a more fundamental level, the facts of the Snyder case bring other constitutional protections into play. The First Amendment provides, among other things, that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When Mr. Snyder was burying Matthew at his church, he was exercising his religious beliefs. Further, the First Amendment states that Congress shall not prohibit the right of people to peacefully assemble, as family members must do at a funeral.

The Court of Appeals did not attempt to juxtapose these equally important constitutional principles on the freedom of speech. However, the court nonetheless concluded that Westboro's First Amendment right to free speech was more important than Snyder's right to exercise his religion or assemble peacefully. It appears that this reasoning would make more sense if Snyder had gone to Westboro's church to practice his religion. The unfortunate reality is that Westboro came to Snyder's church to disrupt his peaceful assembly. In my eyes, the Court of Appeals did not give proper credence to Snyder's constitutional rights.

It is possible that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will have the final word on this issue. It is likewise possible that the U.S. Supreme Court will say that Westboro's right to speak is more important than Snyder's right to peacefully mourn his son in his chosen place of worship. However, it is equally possible that the court will conclude that Snyder's own First Amendment rights were violated. On balance, Snyder remains hopeful that his rights are, at a minimum, equally important. One thing is certain -- by suggesting that the "right decision" was made in the Snyder case, the editors have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the cases that have limited it in appropriate circumstances.

Ironically, the editors end their editorial by stating that certain protests "must be allowed if America is to remain a land of freedom that's worth fighting for and dying for." According to Westboro's experts at trial, Westboro is the only group in all of history to target funerals and protest them. Assuming that the Supreme Court rules that funerals cannot be protested, the realistic consequence is that one family in Topeka, Kan., will no longer be able to harass people while they are burying loved ones. America will not change if people cannot be harassed and degraded at a funeral. Albert Snyder knows more than most will ever know that some rights are worth dying for.

Sean E. Summers is an attorney with Barley Snyder LLC representing Albert Snyder in his suit against Westboro Baptist Church.

DAILY RECORD / SUNDAY NEWS -- FILE

Albert Snyder in his Spring Garden Township home with a collage of photographs of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, and the flag that accompanied his son's body home.